PHIL 341:

Ethical Theory

Student data (on cards)

Contact info: name, address, phone number,
university ID, etc.
Background: especially data on satisfaction of
the prerequisite (two prior courses in
philosophy). Please give names or indicate
subject matter of courses, and note any that were
not taken here. They do have to be courses in a
philosophy department.
Make sure the university directory has your
correct email address (the one where you read
your email regularly) so youll be included on the
coursemail list.

Course data (see syllabus)

Evan Westra, myTA for the course, handles
administrative matters, such as permission to
take it without the prerequisite, along with
discussion sections and grading.
Readings: original texts from historical
philosophers (in editions also containing
recommended explanatory material but other
editions are OK)
Requirements: three papers, midterm and final,
class participation, possible quizzes
No laptops, smartphones, etc. in class, except as
authorized by the disabilities office

First assignment
Read Mill, ch. 1, and start on ch. 2 (at least through his
statement of the Greatest Happiness principle, as listed
on the schedule.
Print out the chart of basic approaches to ethical theory
from my website.
Go to my website address on the syllabus and click on
courses in the menu at the bottom. The course page
contains a link to the syllabus, which links to the schedule.
Note the list of items in the center of the page with information
about general policies, etc.
Click on course materials, then on the link for this course.

Expectations
Also on my website is a handout about the sort of work
expected at this level, as opposed to less demanding 100and 200-level courses.
Note that required readings from historical philosophers take
special effort to unravel and interpret, sometimes with
problems of translation or archaic language.
Our written assignments will often ask you to apply what
youve learned in class to meaty theoretical issues and
questions besides what weve specifically gone over.

Slides from lectures will be posted on the web at the end of

each week, but you cant rely on distance learning
without penalty.
Grades may be adjusted upward at the end of the term, but
this is limited to those whove been seriously involved in
the course.

Subject matter
Some of you may have enrolled in this course just because it was
one way of fulfilling a requirement in some other subject, or
because of general interest in ethics, and thats OK.
But be aware that our subject (or matter is more theoretical (less
practical) than lower-level courses in ethics. Think about whether
this is the right course for you before your schedule is set.
An ethical theory isnt necessarily meant to give you a guide to
moral decision-making in hard cases. Instead, in the first
instance, it attempts to organize and explain common ethical
opinions.
A theory is a systematic body of thought, starting with very
general principles or standards: rules or personal ideals
which are supposed to provide reasons for particular moral
judgments but sometimes only in retrospect, when fuller
information is available.

Sample questions
Rather than debating controversial cases like abortion and
euthanasia, as in PHIL 140, this course examines different ways
historical philosophers have tried to explain cases on which we
generally agree, such as truth-telling.
Whats exactly would be wrong, e.g., with making a lying promise in
order to get a loan you need but know that you cant pay back within
the time allotted?
Arent there cases in which its OK to lie? What if your lie wouldnt
seriously injure anyone, since the amount is relatively small, and the
lender is a large corporation?

In general, how should we resolve a conflict between different

moral precepts, e.g. Dont lie and Take care of your family?
Or is there some rational principle or ideal we can appeal to?

Contrasting views
Well first contrast attempts by Mill and Kant to formulate ultimate
principles of right action: the Principle of Utility vs. the Categorical
Imperative.
Then well jump back to Aristotle to examine an older approach thats
reemerged recently, explaining morality in terms of a personal ideal of
virtue: a character exhibiting rational control over feelings and desires.
Well contrast this with Humes much later view of virtue as based on the
passions or emotions that give rise to moral sentiments via sympathy
Finally, well look at Rawls for a contemporary social contract theory
meant to provide principles of justice that could be sustained by our moral
sentiments.

Two approaches to
(philosophical) ethics
Our general subject, ethical theory can be viewed as a
subdivision (along with practical ethics) of
normative ethics, which directly studies questions
about whats right or wrong, good or bad, etc.,

as opposed to
Metaethics, which raises more general philosophical
questions about what normative ethics amounts to,
e.g. what ethical terms mean, the nature and
objectivity of moral judgments.

The next slide begins an organization chart of approaches

to ethical theory to be filled in further, as needed to
locate Mills theory.

Locating ethical theory

(Philosophical)
Ethics

Metaethics

Normative
Ethics

Practical
Ethics

Ethical Theory

Two approaches to ethical theory

Ethical theory in turn divides into two main

types or approaches:
virtue ethics: begins by considering what makes
a person (or his/her character or motives) morally
good (Aristotle, Hume)
duty ethics: focuses on rules or acts and what
makes them right (Mill, Kant, Rawls)

filled in on the following slide

Partial organization chart

of ethical theories
(Philosophical)
Ethics

Metaethics

Normative
Ethics

Practical Ethics

Ethical Theory

Virtue Ethics

Duty Ethics

Two kinds of duty ethics (1)

deontological (= rule-based):
basic concept = right (or wrong; duty, ought, etc.), a
term applicable to acts and spelled out by rules, e.g. the
Ten Commandments, or elements of common-sense
morality
But philosophers organize rules into different theories:
Kantianism (the categorical imperative as a single
principle from which other rules may be derived): Kant
prima facie duties (intuitionism; multiple underived
principles capable of conflict): W. D. Ross
social contract theory: multiple principles based on group
consent (historical or hypothetical): Rawls

Two kinds of duty ethics (2)

consequentialist (= result-based):
basic concept = (nonmoral) good, applied to an
experience or state of affairs, thought of as the end
(= purpose, goal) of action
right act = act that has the best consequences (=
maximizes the good), on the simplest version
depending on whose good is in question, divides
into:
[ethical] egoism (the good of the agent): Epicurus
utilitarianism (everyone's good): Bentham, Mill

Basic organization chart

of ethical theories
(Philosophical)
Ethics

Metaethics

Normative Ethics

Practical Ethics

Ethical Theory

Virtue Ethics

Duty Ethics

Deontological
Ethics

Consequentialism

Two forms of utilitarianism

Some main variants of utilitarianism (distinguished in the
20th century) depend on how the good is interpreted:
hedonism: happiness (= pleasure, and absence of pain) as
the only thing thats intrinsically (vs. instrumentally) good:
Bentham, Mill (derived from Epicurus).
pluralism: other things besides pleasure also count as
intrinsically good, e.g. beauty, knowledge, personal
relationships: G. E. Moore

Now we have a full enough chart to locate the first theory

well be reading about: Mills utilitarianism, also called
classical or hedonistic utilitarianism (though Mill himself
just calls it utilitarianism).

Locating Mills theory

Philosophical
Ethics

Metaethics

Normative Ethics

Practical Ethics

Ethical Theory

Virtue Ethics

Duty Ethics

Deontological
Ethics

Consequentialism

Kantianism

Egoism

Prima Facie
Duties

Utilitarianism

Contractarianism/
Contractualism

Hedonistic
Utilitarianism

Pluralistic
Utilitarianism

Anticipating Mill